The Kuhse-Singer euthanasia survey: why it fails to undermine the slippery slope argument - comparing apples and apples

Bagaric, Mirko 2002, The Kuhse-Singer euthanasia survey: why it fails to undermine the slippery slope argument - comparing apples and apples, European journal of health law, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 229-241.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title The Kuhse-Singer euthanasia survey: why it fails to undermine the slippery slope argument - comparing apples and apples
Author(s) Bagaric, Mirko
Journal name European journal of health law
Volume number 9
Issue number 3
Start page 229
End page 241
Publisher Kluwer Academic Publishers
Place of publication Dordrecht, Netherlands
Publication date 2002-09
ISSN 0929-0273
Keyword(s) Euthanasia -- Law & legislation
Medical laws & legislation
Law
Medical ethics
Surveys
Summary A survey published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1997 showed that the incidence of non-voluntary euthanasia in Australia was higher than in the Netherlands. Euthanasia is illegal in Australia, while it is openly practiced in the Netherlands. It has been suggested that the results of the survey undermine the slippery slope argument against legalising euthanasia. This is wrong. Although at the time of the survey, euthanasia was formally prohibited by the law in Australia, the medical and legal culture was such that doctors could practice euthanasia with impunity — in certain circumstances euthanasia by doctors was effectively condoned. This is in fact supported by the findings of the survey. The survey suggests that there were approximately 6,700 cases of euthanasia in Australia in the year from July 1994 to June 1995 — not one of which was prosecuted, let alone resulted in a conviction. Ultimately the survey merely shows that in a climate where voluntary euthanasia is tolerated, wide scale abuses (in the form of nonvoluntary euthanasia) occur. Paradoxically the results of the survey give further support to the slippery slope argument.
Language eng
Field of Research 180106 Comparative Law
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2002, Kluwer Law International
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30001730

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Law
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 739 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 07 Jul 2008, 08:05:07 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.